New Delhi: The Supreme Court has rejected multiple petitions calling for a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the electoral bonds scheme. Petitioners sought an inquiry into the transactions involving electoral bonds.
Dismissing the pleas, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said it would be inappropriate and premature to intervene at this stage under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court said it cannot order a roving inquiry into purchase of electoral bonds on the assumption that it was quid pro quo for award of contract, news agency PTI reported.
The petitions are founded on two assumptions that there was a quid pro quo in cases where there was award of contract or change in policy and that certain officials of investigative agency was involved and thereby probe by normal process of law will not be fair or independent,” the court was qoted by Bar and Bench as saying.
The Supreme Court said that the claims being made are just assumptions right now. To look into them, the court would need to do a detailed investigation into how electoral bonds are bought, donations to political parties, and any possible deals between them.
"We decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution," Bar and Bench reported while citing the court order.
Introduced by the Narendra Modi government in 2018, the electoral bonds scheme was invalidated by the Supreme Court in February this year “as a transparent alternative to cash donations to political parties.”
Two NGOs, Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), filed the plea, alleging an "apparent quid pro quo" among political parties, corporations, and investigative agencies.
On February 15, the Supreme Court struck down the electoral bonds scheme, terming it “unconstitutional”. The five-judge apex court constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had said that the anonymous electoral bonds scheme is “violative of the right to information under Article 19(1)(a).” The court had said that political parties are relevant units in the electoral process and information about funding of political parties is essential for electoral choices.